As I said, I'm not keen on the legislation, but I don't get the idea that it's a bad thing to say "Hey, we got this game for free instead of spending $60 on it."
Alright, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment based on my overall cynical nature towards the masses: if a person is stupid enough to believe everything they read from one person without performing any investigative options of their own (such as reading multiple reviews by different people. The internet's fairly good about that.), don't they deserve to get played by the industry?
What happens when all the reputable reviewers got their copy for free?
When all the reputable reviewers get their copies for free (and let's face it, most do) and it sways their opinion to an artificially-positive view of that product, it will be the death of journalism. However, it is the job of the journalist (even the psuedo-journalist like the kind of bloggers this initiative is designed to impact) to be a professional and look at a product from beyond the perk and state what they actually think of it. If we can't have that, the problem isn't with the perks but with the crop of journalists and that can only be fixed through education and discipline. No amount of legislation is going to fix a journalist whose morals and ethics are already tainted. And yes, I do in fact have a similar opinion of other professions.
Still, even assuming such a situation exists and you cannot trust the media it is your responsibility as a consumer to use good judgment and trust your own instincts based on what you know to be your values and tastes. For example, let me present a game that the media in general
hated last year: Alone in the Dark (the ps3 Inferno edition). If I were to strictly follow the reviews I read on that matter, which were nearly universally-negative I would have never played one of the most surprisingly-enjoyable experiences of last year. I, however, used my good judgment. I studied the reviews (including quite a well-written positive review at GameCritics), read what had been fixed from previous versions, and made a call on what I believed to be a worthwhile purchase. I have not regretted that decision since.
We're back to the issue at hand, though: my problem isn't that Full Disclosure would be invoked in the reviews, but how it would come about. I don't like the method of someone enforcing their morals on others at the barrel of a gun. And make no mistake, that's exactly what this is: the government using their police power to enforce their values on others. And I'm going to stop there before I go into a full-out political rant.